Charitable Giving - The Norman Lear Center
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
JANUARY 2021
Charitable
Giving
in the media
Detailed Methodology
By Erica L. Rosenthal, Ph.D.; Adam Amel Rogers, M.C.M.; Emily B. Peterson, Ph.D.
Supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
This report provides detailed methodology from the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center’s research on charitable
giving in mass media. It is a supplement to the official report, which provides a streamlined look at the key findings, and
the detailed findings report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
METHODOLOGY 03
Charitable Giving Survey
Charitable Giving on Television
Charitable Giving in Scripted Entertainment
APPENDIX A: LIST OF TV EPISODES
AND FILMS FOR IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
11
APPENDIX B: CONTENT ANALYSIS
CODEBOOK AND RELIABILITY
18
Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed Methodology 2
METHODOLOGY
CHARITABLE GIVING SURVEY
RECRUITMENT & DATA COLLECTION
Survey data were collected in two waves. Wave 1 was completed between April 2 and April 24,
2020. Wave 2 data were collected using a new set of participants approximately three months
later, between July 9 and August 7, 2020. U.S. adult participants (aged 18 or older) were re-
cruited by Cint, a third-party aggregator of market research panels, and the survey was
administered online using the Qualtrics survey platform. Quotas were imposed for age, sex,
race, and ethnicity according to United States Census estimates to approximate national-rep-
resentativeness. The study was reviewed by the University of Southern California’s Institution-
al Review Board (IRB) and deemed exempt.
To ensure high-quality responses, we included two attention check items — in which partici-
pants were directed to select a particular response — placed randomly in the survey. If par-
ticipants did not correctly answer the attention check item, they were immediately redirected
out of the survey. We then screened participants who completed the survey for additional
low-quality indicators, including completing the survey too quickly (under 10 minutes), engag-
ing in excessive straightlining (selecting the same response all the way down on “matrix table”
items), or skipping large numbers of survey questions. In total, 460 participants in Wave 1 and
590 participants in Wave 2 were excluded from the study due to low-quality responses.
After removing low-quality responses, the final sample for Wave 1 was N = 2,584 and N = 2,505
for Wave 2. There were a few sociodemographic characteristics that differed significantly be-
tween the two waves, including the racial and ethnic breakdown of participants. Participants
in Wave 1 were more likely to be white, while participants in Wave 2 were more likely to be
Black/African American. Additionally, there were significantly more females in the Non-Giver
group in Wave 2 than in Wave 1. These differences between Wave 1 and Wave 2 participants
were controlled for in analysis that compared the two waves.
GIVING GROUP SEGMENTATION PROCEDURE
Participants across both waves were segmented into three giving groups based on their
responses to two survey questions. In the first question, participants were asked how much
money they had given in 2019. If they had not given any money, they were designated as a
“Non-Giver.” Those who had given at least $1 in 2019 were further divided into two groups. We
asked participants to indicate which of a paired set of statements came closest to how they
3 Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed Methodologytypically donate to charitable organizations. Participants had to somewhat agree or strongly
agree with one side of the opposed statements. Responsive Givers consisted of participants
who somewhat or strongly agreed that they were more likely to give in response to a sudden
need or when asked by others. Planned Givers somewhat or strongly agreed that they were
more likely to plan their giving ahead of time.
Planned Giving
Excludes N=227 (4%)
respondents who said they PLANNED GIVERS
didn’t know how much
N=1,785, 35%
they gave in 2019.
NON-GIVERS
N=1,137, 22%
Responsive Giving Gave in 2019
RESPONSIVE GIVERS
N=1,940, 38%
In both waves of data collection, there were slightly more Responsive Givers (38-39%) than
Planned Givers (35%). There were significantly fewer Non-Givers (22-23%). A small percentage
of respondents (4%) could not be classified into the typology because they said they “do not
know” how much money they had given to charitable organizations in 2019.
Total Planned Responsive
Participants Givers Givers Non-Givers Excluded
Wave 1 2,584 899 (35%) 998 (39%) 572 (22%) 115 (4%)
Wave 2 2,505 886 (35%) 942 (38%) 565 (23%) 112 (4%)
Total 5,089 1,785 1,940 1,137 227
Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed Methodology 4The three groups differed significantly in their sociodemographic profiles:
Planned Givers: Planned Givers said that they like to know ahead of time where
their charitable dollars are going. A defining characteristic of this group was their
relatively high income and level of formal education. They were also more likely
than other groups to be male and religious, and skewed toward a conservative
ideology.
Responsive Givers: Like Planned Givers, Responsive Givers donated money to
a charitable organization in 2019. However, this group said that they were more
likely to give in response to a need or an ask, rather than plan their giving. Re-
sponsive Givers were more likely to be female, younger, and slightly more politi-
cally liberal than the other groups.
Non-Givers: Non-Givers were distinguished by low income and perceived finan-
cial instability. They were less likely than Responsive and Planned Givers to have
graduated from college and have children under the age of 18, and more likely to
be politically independent.
MEASURES AND ANALYSIS
We asked participants across both survey waves about their behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs
about charitable giving; their entertainment, news, and cultural preferences; and their atti-
tudes and charitable responses in the context of COVID-19. In Wave 2, we included additional
items to better capture attitudes and giving responses to the national reckoning over racial
discrimination. We also expanded the entertainment and cultural profile categories to include
items about sports, video games, podcasts, and music.
Data were downloaded from Qualtrics into SPSS v27 for analyses. After segmenting partic-
ipants into the three giving groups, we compared the groups using descriptive statistics,
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square analyses. Unless otherwise noted, analyses that
test for differences between the groups combine Wave 1 and Wave 2 data for items included
in both waves (N = 5,089).
For analyses comparing Wave 1 and Wave 2 participants, we controlled for demographic
variables that were significantly different between the two waves using analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA). Findings are reported only when the differences between the two waves were
significant (p1. Hayes, A. F. (2017). In- analyses. We also used the SPSS PROCESS macro v3.5 developed by Andrew
troduction to mediation, Hayes1 to test whether associations were more pronounced for particular groups
moderation, and condi- (moderation analyses).
tional process analysis:
A regression-based
approach. Guilford Publi- CHARITABLE GIVING ON TELEVISION
cations.
DATA COLLECTION
We mined text data from TVEyes, a global TV search engine that includes closed
captioning transcripts of programming and commercials on all national broadcast
networks, every local TV market, and all basic cable TV programming — 916 sta-
tions in total.
In the formative phase, we used this database to monitor the frequencies of men-
tions of over 50 charitable giving keywords that derived from previous Media Lab
research on charitable giving in online news. Based on the results of these tests, we
then narrowed the list to 12 keywords that would provide a comprehensive picture
of charitable giving on U.S. television. The final keywords were charity, charities,
charitable, donate, donation, donor, fundraiser, fundraising, “GivingTuesday,”
“Giving Pledge,” philanthropist, and philanthropy. Searches used word-stem-
ming, which allowed for pluralization of the keywords.
Using these keywords, we utilized the TVEyes Saved Search API to generate the
following data for each individual charitable giving mention:
1. Unique ID
2. Program name
3. City
4. State
5. Keyword
6. TV station
7. Viewership
8. Full text of mention (25-30 words surrounding the charitable
giving mention)
9. Video link to full mention (active for 30 days after mention)
Data were collected using the same set of keywords in three separate 40-day
periods: Giving Season (November 24, 2019 - January 2, 2020), a normative period
(February 1, 2020 - March 11, 2020), and a COVID-19 period (April 27, 2020 - June
5, 2020). The normative period was selected for February in an attempt to capture
a regular time period that was far enough away from the end of the year giving
period and the COVID-19 period was added later on to see how the pandemic was
impacting media coverage of charitable giving.
Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed Methodology 6DATA CLEANING
To focus on English-language TV mentions with at least some viewers, all radio
mentions, Spanish-language mentions, and television mentions with no view-
ership information or under 5,000 impressions were removed from the dataset.
For the Giving Season and the normative period, all duplicate mentions were
removed and the national viewership for each mention was retained. For exam-
ple, a charitable giving reference on a show like Young Sheldon would appear
in the dataset 210 times — once for each media market. Through this cleaning
process, all but one mention would be removed, and this would count as one
mention with the national viewership numbers that are provided by TVEyes. In
13. Impressions refer to the the COVID-19 period, this process was conducted on all mentions with over 5
number of views each
million impressions in order to identify the most viewed mentions. Mentions
charitable giving mention
with under 5 million national impressions still contain accurate local viewership,
received, based on view-
ership data from TVEyes, a
but the mentions were not collapsed to reveal the national viewership. The
global TV search engine that COVID period is only compared with the other periods in impressions — the
monitors TV stations in all only comparisons requiring the number of individual mentions are made using
U.S. media markets. COVID mentions with over 5 million impressions.
CONTENT CODING
For the Giving Season and normative periods, spreadsheets were submitted in
batches of about 5,000 mentions to Mechanical Turk — a crowdsourcing mar-
ketplace for individual tasks — for human coders to identify the genre and topic
for each reference. In the COVID period, analysis started with Lear Center staff
review.
The genre options were:
1. Commercial
2. News
3. Scripted Entertainment
4. Unscripted Entertainment
5. Sports
The topic options were:
1. Animals 8. Health
2. Arts 9. Human Rights
3. Children 10. Politics
4. Community 11. Poverty
5. Disaster 12. Religion
6. Education 13. Trust & Scams
7. Environment
7 Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed MethodologyThese data were then reviewed by Lear Center staff as a starting point to institute automated
standards for identifying genre and topic for each reference.
The genre of each mention was individually coded by Lear Center staff as either commercial,
news programming, scripted entertainment, sports programming, or unscripted entertain-
ment.
Mechanical Turk results for topic identification were used as training data to inform sub-key-
words to automate topic identification. This process was repeatedly refined as new sub-key-
words were identified — especially based on new COVID and Black Lives Matter sub-keywords.
Up to 30 sub-keywords were built into automation formulas to identify each topic. After the
formulas identified topics, Lear Center staff randomly selected 5,000 mentions and reviewed
the identified topics to ensure 100% accuracy.
We used Excel pivot tables to generate frequencies and analyze all data by period, keyword,
genre, topic, and impressions.
CHARITABLE GIVING IN SCRIPTED
ENTERTAINMENT
DATA COLLECTION AND CLEANING
To conduct a historical analysis of charitable giving depictions, we used the Norman Lear Cen-
ter Script Database, which includes over 140,000 transcripts of scripted television episodes
and films that were scraped from public repositories. Database content is identified by the
calendar year in which it aired. In order to get a clear sense of how charitable giving has been
depicted we set out to capture at least 10 years of data, including the most recent depictions
from 2018 and 2019. The time frame for analysis was January 2008 through August 2019,
which included over 87,000 transcripts.
We searched the database using the same 12 keywords from the television analysis (charity,
charities, charitable, donate, donation, donor, fundraiser, fundraising, “GivingTuesday,” “Giving
Pledge,” philanthropist, and philanthropy). Search results were exported as both PDFs and
Excel spreadsheets with the content year, content type, episode number, and about 25 words
around each charitable mention. Lear Center staff sifted through search results to remove all
non-relevant mentions, like where the word “Charity” was mentioned as a character’s name.
Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed Methodology 8After cleaning the data, we were left with 25,627 unique mentions of charitable
giving keywords in 15,392 film and TV episode transcripts.
IN-DEPTH CONTENT ANALYSIS SAMPLE
After identifying the overall sample of charitable giving mentions in scripted
entertainment from 2008-2019, we narrowed this down to a smaller number of
television episodes and films for in-depth analysis.
To qualify for inclusion in the in-depth sample, television episodes were required
to have at least five charitable giving mentions and films needed to have at least
three (in order to have enough films to analyze). These thresholds allowed for
major charitable giving content to be analyzed, instead of fleeting mentions
of giving keywords. Further, to ensure we analyzed content that a significant
number of people had seen, television shows were required to average at least
1 million viewers per episode — according to data on each show’s wikipedia
page, which is provided by Nielsen — and films had to be released either in
U.S. movie theaters or on Netflix. To prevent individual TV series from having an
2. See Appendix A for the list
outsize influence on the sample, only three episodes with the most charitable
of films and TV episodes.
giving mentions were included from 90210 and Damages (out of six episodes
3. See Appendix B for the that qualified for the sample from both series). To focus on monetary charitable
codebook. giving, we excluded content with only political donation or fundraiser storylines
as well as those about organ (or blood, tissue, or reproductive) donation. After
applying these criteria, the sample for the in-depth analysis included 170 pieces
of content, including 139 episodes from 110 TV shows and 31 films.2
CODING PROCEDURE
We developed a detailed codebook to examine the context of charitable giv-
ing mentions.3 The codebook included episode related variables (show title,
episode number, content year, genre), as well as variables related to charitable
causes, charitable organizations, the characteristics of donors and beneficia-
ries, and charitable events and fundraisers. We also examined episode-level
variables like sentiment toward giving, depicted motivation for giving.
Most items were analyzed at the episode level (N = 170). Certain items, like
donor demographics, were analyzed only for those episodes that included an
act of giving (N = 126). Fundraiser-related variables were analyzed only for those
episodes with an event or fundraiser (N = 86). Nothing was analyzed at the
individual character level. Character demographics were analyzed as episodes
featuring at least one character with the specified demographic.
9 Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed Methodology25. See Appendix B for the CODER TRAINING AND RELIABILITY TESTING
results of the full reliability
analysis. Ten graduate and undergraduate students from the University of Southern
California and two members of the research team coded the in-depth sample
26. Rosenthal, E.L., Rogers,
between August and September 2020. The coding period followed a one-
A.A, & Peterson, E.B. (2020)
Charitable Giving in the month training period that included several rounds of testing and refining the
Media. USC Annenberg codebook.
Norman Lear Center. https://
www.mediaimpactproject. In the middle of coder training, a preliminary sample of 17 episodes (10% of
org/uploads/5/1/2/7/5127770/ episodes) was double-coded to measure inter-rater reliability. Codebook items
charitablegivinginthemedia.
that achieved high reliability continued on unchanged in the training process.
pdf
The training process was further refined to better train coders on codebook
27. Rosenthal, E.L., Rogers, items that had borderline or poor reliability. A second round of reliability analysis
A.A, & Peterson, E.B. (2020) was calculated on an additional 10% of episodes after coding was complete. For
Charitable Giving in the variables that exhibited ... the variable is not included in the report. For variables
Media: Detailed Findings. that exhibited borderline (none to slight agreement) or inadequate reliability
USC Annenberg Norman
(fair to moderate agreement), the variable is not included in the report.25
Lear Center. https://www.
mediaimpactproject.org/
uploads/5/1/2/7/5127770/
Research highlights and detailed findings can be found in separate reports.26 27
charitablegiving_detailed-
findings.pdf
Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed Methodology 10APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
LIST OF TV EPISODES AND FILMS FOR
IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
FILM EPISODES
TITLE YEAR
#REALITYHIGH 2017
A Most Wanted Man 2014
Annie 2014
Arthur 2011
Bad Santa 2 2016
Barbershop: The Next Cut 2016
Blind Side, The 2009
Bohemian Rhapsody 2018
Bruno 2009
Bruno & Boots: Go Jump in the Pool 2016
Christmas Inheritance 2017
Dear White People 2014
Fifty Shades Darker 2017
Fifty Shades of Black 2016
Foxcatcher 2014
Hannah Montana: The Movie 2009
Heaven Is for Real 2014
House Bunny, The 2008
Invictus 2009
Jingle All the Way 2 2014
Mission: Impossible - Fallout 2018
Monte Carlo 2011
11 Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed MethodologyTITLE YEAR
Saw VI 2009
Sex Tape 2014
Spotlight 2015
Step Up 2 The Streets 2008
Terminator Salvation 2009
The Accountant 2016
The Help 2011
Toy Story 3 2010
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps 2010
Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed Methodology 12TV EPISODES
TITLE YEAR SEASON EPISODE
30 Rock 2008 3 15
90210 2011 4 16
90210 2011 4 19
90210 2012 5 13
A.N.T. Farm 2013 3 11
A.N.T. Farm 2011 1 2
A.N.T. Farm 2012 2 8
American Dad 2013 10 4
American Dad 2016 11 8
American Housewife 2017 2 8
Austin and Ally 2012 2 4
Austin and Ally 2013 3 8
Billions 2018 3 4
Black Lightning 2019 2 5
Black-ish 2016 3 10
Black-ish 2017 4 8
Blindspot 2016 2 17
Blue Bloods 2012 3 13
Blue Bloods 2018 9 13
Bob's Burgers 2019 9 21
Bojack Horseman 2015 2 8
Bosch 2015 2 9
Breaking Bad 2009 2 13
Brooklyn Nine-Nine 2017 5 6
Brothers & Sisters 2008 3 8
Bucket & Skinner's Epic Adventures 2011 1 10
Bull 2016 1 17
Bunk'd 2018 4 6
13 Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed MethodologyTITLE YEAR SEASON EPISODE
Burn Notice 2010 4 4
Carmen Sandiego 2019 1 8
Catastrophe 2018 4 1
Chicago Med 2018 4 5
Chicago Med 2018 4 6
Cold Case 2008 6 13
Coop and Cami Ask the World 2018 1 8
CSI: NY 2008 5 15
Damages 2009 3 11
Damages 2011 5 8
Damages 2009 3 12
Difficult People 2016 2 2
Dog with a Blog 2014 3 21
Elementary 2015 4 14
Franklin and Bash 2011 1 3
God Friended Me 2018 1 4
Gossip Girl 2010 4 21
Gotham 2014 1 20
Greek 2009 3 6
Greek 2010 4 8
Grown-ish 2019 2 16
Happy Endings 2012 2 9
Hawaii Five-0 2011 2 6
House of Cards 2016 4 11
House, M.D. 2010 7 14
House, M.D. 2010 7 10
How I Met Your Mother 2010 6 12
iCarly 2009 2 21
Insecure 2016 1 7
Insecure 2016 1 6
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia 2015 11 2
Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed Methodology 14TITLE YEAR SEASON EPISODE
Jane the Virgin 2016 3 13
Kim's Convenience 2017 2 9
Law & Order 2008 19 14
Law & Order Special Victims Unit 2017 19 16
Law & Order: Los Angeles 2010 1 19
Lethal Weapon 2016 1 11
Letterkenny 2017 2 2
Little Mosque on the Prairie 2011 5 7
Lopez 2016 1 6
Lucifer 2017 2 15
Madam Secretary 2016 3 6
Major Crimes 2014 3 14
Man with a Plan 2016 1 4
Medium 2008 4 8
Melrose Place 2009 1 17
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic 2014 5 24
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic 2013 4 14
My Name is Earl 2008 4 13
NCIS 2013 11 17
NCIS 2013 11 15
NCIS New Orleans 2015 2 17
New Amsterdam 2018 1 6
New Girl 2011 1 17
Numb3rs 2008 4 5
Numb3rs 2008 4 18
Parenthood 2014 5 3
Parenthood 2014 5 4
Parks and Recreation 2013 5 15
Parks and Recreation 2010 2 22
Person of Interest 2011 1 10
Person of Interest 2012 2 10
15 Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed MethodologyTITLE YEAR SEASON EPISODE
Phineas and Ferb 2008 2 18
Phineas and Ferb 2011 4 24
Psych 2011 6 13
Pushing Daisies 2008 2 7
Rizzoli and Isles 2013 4 4
Rosewood 2016 2 7
Rosewood 2015 1 7
Royal Pains 2015 7 4
Rules of Engagement 2010 4 6
Santa Clarita Diet 2017 1 6
Schitt's Creek 2015 1 12
Sean Saves The World 2013 1 10
South Park 2015 19 5
South Park 2016 20 5
Speechless 2017 2 3
Speechless 2017 2 12
Steven Universe 2016 4 18
Succession 2018 1 4
Suits 2018 8 6
Superstore 2015 1 3
Switched at Birth 2011 1 4
Teen Wolf 2015 5 17
The Amazing World of Gumball 2012 3 9
The Amazing World of Gumball 2012 3 28
The Amazing World of Gumball 2013 4 6
The Big C 2012 3 7
The Blacklist 2016 4 13
The Bold Type 2017 1 3
The Boondocks 2008 4 10
The Cleveland Show 2010 2 9
The Goldbergs 2018 6 23
Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed Methodology 16TITLE YEAR SEASON EPISODE
The Leftovers 2015 2 6
The Mentalist 2010 3 19
The Mindy Project 2014 3 1
The New Adventures of Old Christine 2010 5 15
The New Normal 2012 1 17
The Office (US) 2013 9 2
The Philanthropist 2009 1 6
The Resident 2019 2 22
The Ricky Gervais Show 2012 3 2
The Royals 2015 1 4
The Royals 2017 3 7
The Tudors 2010 4 9
Those Who Can't 2018 3 4
Two and a Half Men 2009 7 14
Veep 2017 6 3
White Collar 2011 3 6
White Collar 2014 6 4
Young Sheldon 2018 2 21
17 Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed MethodologyAPPENDIX B:
CONTENT ANALYSIS CODEBOOK
AND RELIABILITY
Interrater reliability (Cohen’s Kappa) and percent agreement values are shown after each item
in the format “[Cohen’s Kappa / Percent Agreement].” A Kappa value above .60 is considered
acceptable. Because of the low base rates on many of the coded variables (very few YES
responses), reliability can be extremely low even when the percent agreement between the
coders is high. This is because they are largely agreeing on the absence of the characteristic in
question. Variables with unacceptable (less than .20) reliability are highlighted in red and those
with borderline reliability (.21-.60) are highlighted in yellow. Items with unacceptable reliability
were either not reported on or were re-examined on an individual basis to verify the accuracy
of what was reported on.
l Less than 0: no agreement
l 0.01-0.20: none to slight agreement
l 0.21-0.40: fair agreement `
l 0.41-0.60: moderate agreement
l 0.61-0.80: substantial agreement
l 0.81-1.00: almost perfect agreement
EPISODE INFORMATION
l TV series or movie name [1.00/100]
l Episode season and episode number [1.00/100]
l Content year [1.00/100]
l Genre [1.00/100]
l Drama sub-genre [1.00/100]
l Storyline prominence [.25/79]
l Is charitable giving depicted as central to the storyline, or incidental? [.76/94]
CAUSES
l What are the specific charitable causes or issues mentioned? (open-ended)
[NA/NA]
l Physical distance of the beneficiaries of the giving?
¶ Local [.70/91]
¶ International [.78/85]
l Who does the storyline focus on primarily? [.56/74]
l Thematic or episodic framing?
Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed Methodology 18¶ Focus on individual [.57/85]
¶ Focus on systems [.64/94]
l Is the cause talked about in terms of gains or losses?
¶ Gains [.38/74]
¶ Losses [-.15/74]
ORGANIZATIONS
l Is a specific charitable organization mentioned? [.84/94]
l Do any of the mentioned charitable organizations exist in real life? [.83/94]
l Describe the organizational representatives. (open-ended) [NA/NA]
l Is there any mention of overhead? [1.00/100]
GIVING
l Is there an act of giving in the episode? [.64/85]
l Race of donors?
¶ Black [1.00/1.00]
¶ Latinx [.79/97]
¶ Asian or Pacific Islander [.65/97]
¶ White [.82/91]
l Age of donors?
¶ Under 18 [.79/97]
¶ 18-30 [1.00/100]
¶ 31-50 [.88/94]
¶ 51+ [.91/97]
l Socioeconomic status of donors?
¶ Rich [.87/94]
¶ Middle [.87/94]
¶ Poor [1.00/100]
l Is there giving done by a main character? [.71/85]
l What sort of entity is depicted as giving?
¶ Corporation [1.00/100]
¶ Telethon [1.00/100]
¶ Foundation [-.04/91]
¶ Public Figure [.72/94]
¶ Individual [.61/82]
¶ Group of Individuals [.84/97]
¶ Crowdfunding [1.00/100]
l What is being given?
¶ Time [.60/.88]
¶ Money [.75/.88]
19 Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed Methodology¶ Food [1.00/100]
¶ Blood or Organs [1.00/100]
¶ Religious Tithing [1.00/100]
¶ Other Goods [.82/91]
l What is the venue for giving?
¶ Fundraising Event [.80/94]
¶ School [.63/94]
¶ Home [.80/94]
¶ Workplace [.87/97]
¶ Religious Venue [1.00/100]
¶ Other [.82/91]
l Is an online donation platform depicted? [.64/94]
l What motivations for giving occur in the episode?
¶ Selfless [.76/88]
¶ Self-interest [.64/82]
l What giving intent occurs in the episode?
¶ Planned [.53/88]
¶ Responsive [.77/88]
l Does a giver explicitly express empathy toward those affected by the cause?
[.67/88]
l Does the giver express satisfaction, regret, or guilt?
¶ Satisfaction [.61/85]
¶ Regret [.61/85]
¶ Guilt [1.00/100]
BENEFICIARIES
l Are any beneficiaries of charity shown on screen? [.66/85]
l Race of beneficiaries?
¶ Black [1.00/100]
¶ Latinx [1.00/100]
¶ Asian of Pacific Islander [1.00/100]
¶ White [.21/85]
l Ages of beneficiaries?
¶ Under 18 [.68/91]
¶ 18-30 [1.00/100]
¶ 31-50 [.79/97]
¶ 51+ [.46/74]
l Socioeconomic status of beneficiaries?
¶ Rich [1.00/100]
¶ Middle [.47/94]
¶ Poor [1.00/100]
l Do the beneficiaries get to tell their story at all? [.62/91]
Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed Methodology 20EVENTS/FUNDRAISERS
l Is a charitable event/fundraiser depicted? [1.00/100]
l What is the venue for the fundraiser? [.57/68]
l What is the racial composition of event attendees? [.68/79]
l What is the gender composition of event attendees? [.61/76]
l How are people attending the event dressed? [.72/82]
l Include any information about any dollar amounts mentioned in terms of amount
raised or asked for (open-ended). [NA/NA]
EPISODE OVERALL
l Overall sentiment toward charitable giving in the episode? [.63/82]
l Charity corruption shown? [.77/91]
l Fake charity shown? [.77/91]
l Celebrity mentioned? [.55/76]
l Impact of a charitable gift shown? [.64/94]
21 Charitable Giving in the Media: Detailed MethodologyYou can also read
